Millions for Parade Could Aid Soldiers and Veterans Instead

On June 14, 2025, Washington's National Mall will transform into a stage for military might. Nearly 7,000 soldiers, 28 Abrams tanks, and 50 aircraft will parade through the capital to mark the Army's 250th birthday. The spectacle promises to impress, but its price tag, up to $45 million, raises a pressing question. In a nation grappling with division, why prioritize tanks over the urgent needs of those who serve?

The soldiers involved speak with genuine pride. First Lieutenant Luke Heisler, a New Jersey native, called it an honor to represent the Army's history. Sergeant First Class Timothy Reid, from Virginia, hopes the public sees the discipline of his unit. Their dedication shines through, a testament to the human heart of our military. Yet, their voices also remind us of a deeper obligation: to support them with more than a fleeting moment in the spotlight.

This parade, set just days before the president's birthday, feels less like a celebration of service and more like a calculated show. The Army touts it as a recruiting tool, but the service already surpassed its 2025 goal of 61,000 contracts months ago. If the aim is to inspire, why not channel those millions into the soldiers and veterans who need it most? The choice to stage this event now, at this scale, demands scrutiny.

At its core, this event concerns choices that reflect what we value as a nation. It goes beyond a simple honoring of the Army's legacy. Spending millions on a one-day display while veterans wait for care sends a troubling message. We can do better, and we owe it to those who serve to try.

The question lingers: what does this parade truly achieve? Recruitment is up, public admiration for the military remains high, and our adversaries already know our strength. The real need lies elsewhere, in the barracks, hospitals, and communities where soldiers and veterans live.

The financial cost is staggering. Up to $45 million, drawn from Army budgets and a special appropriation, will fund this single day of pageantry. That's money that could repair outdated barracks, expand mental health care, or provide childcare for military families. Veterans' advocates are clear: 70 percent of veterans surveyed by Data for Progress and Common Defense oppose using active-duty forces for this parade. They see the real needs, housing, healthcare, job support, being pushed aside.

Lawmakers echo this concern. While tanks roll along Constitution Avenue, funding for social programs and veterans' services faces cuts. One representative framed it starkly: every dollar spent on this parade is a dollar not spent on a veteran's hospital visit. The Army's own data shows recruitment thriving, driven by smart outreach like short-form videos and campus events. If the goal is engagement, those efforts are working without the need for a costly spectacle.

Some defend the parade, arguing it lifts morale and signals strength to adversaries. They point to soldiers like Sergeant Joseph Inge, who called the Army an 'amazing organization.' But morale comes from tangible support, better pay, safer housing, stronger families, not from a day of fanfare. And strength? Our global standing rests on alliances and diplomacy, not on parading hardware through city streets. This display risks mimicking the authoritarian spectacles of decades past, a comparison we can't afford to invite.

The parade's timing, tied closely to the president's birthday, carries a troubling undertone. Historically, military displays followed clear victories, like the 1991 Gulf War parade. Today, with no such milestone, this event feels more like a political statement than a national celebration. Tying the Army to a single figure risks eroding its role as an institution that serves every American, regardless of politics.

Recent events have already strained trust. The deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests without the governor's approval, the first such action since 1965, drew sharp criticism. Now, the president's warning of 'very big force' against parade protesters blurs the line between honoring service and silencing dissent. Why jeopardize the military's impartiality for a spectacle that divides more than it unites?

Supporters claim the parade will connect civilians with the military, showcasing the professionalism of soldiers like Reid. Yet, Pew's 2025 poll shows 79 percent of Americans already view the military positively. The gap lies in familiarity, not admiration. Most Americans don't know a service member, and a parade won't change that. Investments in community outreach or veterans' storytelling would build stronger bridges without the risk of politicization.

There's a better way to mark the Army's 250th birthday. Redirect those millions to veterans' hospitals, mental health programs, or family support. Expand proven outreach, like the Army's TikTok campaigns or esports events, which engage young people without divisive optics. Strengthen our global standing through diplomacy and alliances, which have always outlasted displays of raw power.

The pride of soldiers like Heisler, Reid, and Inge is a powerful reminder of the Army's legacy. Honoring them means making choices that prioritize their needs, healthcare, housing, opportunity, over fleeting displays. As we look to the nation's 250th birthday in 2026, let's build a celebration that unites us, one that invests in people and prioritizes substance over mere pageantry.

This parade may capture headlines, but its cost, in dollars, trust, and unity, is too steep. We honor our military best by supporting its people, prioritizing their needs over showcasing its machines. That's the legacy our soldiers deserve, and it is the future our nation needs to pursue.